LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[Greed and Death]

"Uppity Negroes shamelessly cause scene at Walgreens lunch counter."

Lynch mob to meet at 11pm tonight. Tune in 6 hours for live coverage.

[The Black Forrest]

Red herring.

(As a matter of fact I do, as well as polyandry and group marriages.)

No, no it's not. Group marriages just make marriage a joke, where would it stop?

Slippery Slope.....

[Zephie]

They aren't allowed to use the loudspeaker, that's for employees, so they are violating the property rights of the store, breaking the law isn't justified for protesting for the advancement of homosexual culture. If I was the manager I would have simply called the police. She was too nice.

Your flag tells me you are a communist but this comment tells me support corporation rights over discriminated people protesting.

Who said communists promote homosexual culture?

I always considered tolerance at least part of the rhetoric of communism.

There's a difference between tolerating a group of people and integrating homosexual culture with your own.

[Farnhamia]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

Many liberals are hateful, like the ones that call anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, or a racist. The race card is their most overused. Hell, people have gotten beaten for speaking out against Obama.

Hmm you seek to discriminate against a class of people but your are not a bigot? You say things like "legitimate" marriages while gays can't be legitimate and you are not hateful?

Source the people being assaulted claim for people speaking against the President.....

It may help to remember that Zephie is one of the people here who think that anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because they discriminate against people who want to discriminate against other people.

[Sagatagan]

Red herring.

(As a matter of fact I do, as well as polyandry and group marriages.)

No, no it's not. Group marriages just make marriage a joke, where would it stop?

With the right of any number of consenting human adults to enter into a legal union of marriage? Sounds alright to me.

[Dododecapod]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

It was a protest, yes. It was also legal, yet it was in poor taste and Target should have asked them to leave immediately.

And I'd have no problem with that.

Then what is this argument about?

Gun Manufacturer's attempt to portray the protest as being illegal.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

Creating a disturbance on private property is now legal?

[Haiz]

They aren't allowed to use the loudspeaker, that's for employees, so they are violating the property rights of the store, breaking the law isn't justified for protesting for the advancement of homosexual culture. If I was the manager I would have simply called the police. She was too nice.

Your flag tells me you are a communist but this comment tells me support corporation rights over discriminated people protesting.

Who said communists promote homosexual culture?

I always considered tolerance at least part of the rhetoric of communism.

There's a difference between tolerating a group of people and integrating homosexual culture with your own.

Yes, people "forcing" you to actually tolerate a group - how undermining.

[Sagatagan]

They aren't allowed to use the loudspeaker, that's for employees, so they are violating the property rights of the store, breaking the law isn't justified for protesting for the advancement of homosexual culture. If I was the manager I would have simply called the police. She was too nice.

Your flag tells me you are a communist but this comment tells me support corporation rights over discriminated people protesting.

Who said communists promote homosexual culture?

I always considered tolerance at least part of the rhetoric of communism.

There's a difference between tolerating a group of people and integrating homosexual culture with your own.

No one's asking you to integrate. You don't have to get campy. You just have to let them be campy. There's a difference between integration and pluralism.

[Sagatagan]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

Creating a disturbance on private property is now legal?

They left when asked to leave. Legal.

[Zephie]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

Many liberals are hateful, like the ones that call anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, or a racist. The race card is their most overused. Hell, people have gotten beaten for speaking out against Obama.

Hmm you seek to discriminate against a class of people but your are not a bigot? You say things like "legitimate" marriages while gays can't be legitimate and you are not hateful?

Source the people being assaulted claim for people speaking against the President.....

It may help to remember that Zephie is one of the people here who think that anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because they discriminate against people who want to discriminate against other people.

Slander if I ever knew it. I've been discriminated against simply because I wasn't "black" or "hispanic" because those groups of people are apparently more deserving of government aid than I am, because statistically, there are more white people that are wealthy than blacks and hispanics.

If you consider me thinking no groups deserves preferential treatment equates to discriminating against people, then I am guilty.

[The Black Forrest]

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

The rights of marriage don't make any sense when applied to single people. Including the alleged "tax breaks", which are not a marriage subsidy but rather an alleviation of the tax burden on families where one adult is the primary income-earner.

Then there shouldn't be marriage, because it discriminates against all who are married!

[Greed and Death]

Red herring.

(As a matter of fact I do, as well as polyandry and group marriages.)

No, no it's not. Group marriages just make marriage a joke, where would it stop?

With the right of any number of consenting human adults to enter into a legal union of marriage? Sounds alright to me.

there are practical issues to consider.
A group marriage say one of the people wants to leave one person, does she divorce the whole group or does she divorce just the one person. Divorces would take decades to finalize rather then the 1.5 years currently.

[Daistallia 2104]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

Tell that to Christian Churches who do marry gays, as well as these folks:

http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... arriage__/

[Tergnitz]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

To you. But its still not in good taste to think that something can be dictated to all Christianity.

Well, all of Christianity should be based around the teachings in the Bible, which clearly states its opposition to homosexuality. Thus, this stance can be dictated to all of Christianity and those who oppose it are not true Christians.

Again, got no problem with that. I ain't in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. My only question is: Do you have a problem with two non-christians entering into a same-sex marriage?

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

[Zephie]

Red herring.

(As a matter of fact I do, as well as polyandry and group marriages.)

No, no it's not. Group marriages just make marriage a joke, where would it stop?

With the right of any number of consenting human adults to enter into a legal union of marriage? Sounds alright to me.

there are practical issues to consider.
A group marriage say one of the people wants to leave one person, does she divorce the whole group or does she divorce just the one person. Divorces would take decades to finalize rather then the 1.5 years currently.

Yes and how is the wealth split? If a group of 3 divorce does each get 1/3 of the property? Oh lawd.

[Soheran]

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

Hence, Jews, atheists, Muslims, etc. don't actually get married. And marriage isn't actually a civil institution in the US, rather than a religious one. This is all in our imagination.

[Ryadn]

They aren't allowed to use the loudspeaker, that's for employees, so they are violating the property rights of the store, breaking the law isn't justified for protesting for the advancement of homosexual culture. If I was the manager I would have simply called the police. She was too nice.

Your flag tells me you are a communist but this comment tells me support corporation rights over discriminated people protesting.

Who said communists promote homosexual culture?

I always considered tolerance at least part of the rhetoric of communism.

There's a difference between tolerating a group of people and integrating homosexual culture with your own.

No one's asking you to redecorate, Zeph.

[Zephie]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

Tell that to Christian Churches who do marry gays, as well as these folks:

http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... arriage__/

How does this prove anything? Oh yes, that's right, it doesn't.

[Haiz]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

Many liberals are hateful, like the ones that call anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, or a racist. The race card is their most overused. Hell, people have gotten beaten for speaking out against Obama.

Hmm you seek to discriminate against a class of people but your are not a bigot? You say things like "legitimate" marriages while gays can't be legitimate and you are not hateful?

Source the people being assaulted claim for people speaking against the President.....

It may help to remember that Zephie is one of the people here who think that anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because they discriminate against people who want to discriminate against other people.

Slander if I ever knew it. I've been discriminated against simply because I wasn't "black" or "hispanic" because those groups of people are apparently more deserving of government aid than I am, because statistically, there are more white people that are wealthy than blacks and hispanics.

If you consider me thinking no groups deserves preferential treatment equates to discriminating against people, then I am guilty.

What? Please stop connecting what you feel is "special treatment" and using it to fearmonger and speculate. Is it not ludicrous to say you are equally fueling hype?

[Tergnitz]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

It was a protest, yes. It was also legal, yet it was in poor taste and Target should have asked them to leave immediately.

And I'd have no problem with that.

Then what is this argument about?

Gun Manufacturer's attempt to portray the protest as being illegal.

Oh, obviously I didn't read the OP closely enough. As far as I can tell, the protest was fully legal, yet in poor taste, as I stated before.

[Farnhamia]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

Many liberals are hateful, like the ones that call anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, or a racist. The race card is their most overused. Hell, people have gotten beaten for speaking out against Obama.

Hmm you seek to discriminate against a class of people but your are not a bigot? You say things like "legitimate" marriages while gays can't be legitimate and you are not hateful?

Source the people being assaulted claim for people speaking against the President.....

It may help to remember that Zephie is one of the people here who think that anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because they discriminate against people who want to discriminate against other people.

Slander if I ever knew it. I've been discriminated against simply because I wasn't "black" or "hispanic" because those groups of people are apparently more deserving of government aid than I am, because statistically, there are more white people that are wealthy than blacks and hispanics.

If you consider me thinking no groups deserves preferential treatment equates to discriminating against people, then I am guilty.

Yes, I do notice you aren't denying it. And it would be libel, since I wrote it down, not slander.

[Greed and Death]

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

The rights of marriage don't make any sense when applied to single people. Including the alleged "tax breaks", which are not a marriage subsidy but rather an alleviation of the tax burden on families where one adult is the primary income-earner.

Then there shouldn't be marriage, because it discriminates against all who are married!

I would like to see marriage outlawed for all as well.
It is a backwards relic from the past.

[Dododecapod]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

Creating a disturbance on private property is now legal?

Yes. With the proviso that it must be publically accessible private property, such as a store or other freely available area. The only time the law gets involved is if the creators of the disturbance are asked to leave, and refuse.

[Tergnitz]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

Tell that to Christian Churches who do marry gays, as well as these folks:

http://www.musingson.com/ccCase.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... arriage__/

They are wrong and are not true Christians then are they.